Sikorsky wins Presidential helo competition
Thread Starter
Sikorsky wins Presidential helo competition
Did anybody NOT see this coming? 
Dear Sikorsky and UTC:
It is in your interest, and in the nation's interest, that you get this right.
Dear Sikorsky and UTC:
It is in your interest, and in the nation's interest, that you get this right.
Well done Sikorsky!! You managed to not lose a competition in which you were the only entrant, with a helicopter that didn't even meet the cabin size specifications in the original competition. 
Will it have a Main Gearbox that can actually run 30 minutes without oil???
And AW still got paid out for losing the original competition!!!
Will it have a Main Gearbox that can actually run 30 minutes without oil???
And AW still got paid out for losing the original competition!!!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noooby, I can't believe that you beat me to posting about the lack run dry time. That's my favorite subject when anything to do with the S92 is posted.
Anyway this is good news for the Canadians I guess. With all this money going to Sikorsky from the US government hopefully they can sort out this 'issue' with the MGB.
It still surprises me how an aircraft can be certified to the 'latest' standard through a loop hole introduced specifically for that aircraft when it fails the run dry test and then when this comes to light (unfortunately through very tragic events) the aircraft still keeps it's certification?
Anyway this is good news for the Canadians I guess. With all this money going to Sikorsky from the US government hopefully they can sort out this 'issue' with the MGB.
It still surprises me how an aircraft can be certified to the 'latest' standard through a loop hole introduced specifically for that aircraft when it fails the run dry test and then when this comes to light (unfortunately through very tragic events) the aircraft still keeps it's certification?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 dry run
to be fair the S92 was not certified through a specific loop hole as you imply, the rules always only required compliance with the 30 mins dry run time if you could not demonstrate that the chance of oil loss was 'extremely remote'.
Remember that after all it WAS certified by more than one authority using that rule, they were not bent for that aircarft, it's just that every other type managed to meet the 30 min capability regardless of whether thay actually needed to (other types may also have been able to demonstrate to the authorities that loss of lubrication was extremely remote, as was done on the S92, in which case they wouldn't need a 30 mins capability either)
What is surprising is that after at least 2 demonstarted instances where lubrication was lost on the 92 the Cat A certification wasn't pulled, because I would argue that circumstances have shown that the 'extremely remote' chance, isnt!!
anyway I am happy that POTUS will be flying on the second best platform while AW continue to delivery the best one to other heads of state...
Remember that after all it WAS certified by more than one authority using that rule, they were not bent for that aircarft, it's just that every other type managed to meet the 30 min capability regardless of whether thay actually needed to (other types may also have been able to demonstrate to the authorities that loss of lubrication was extremely remote, as was done on the S92, in which case they wouldn't need a 30 mins capability either)
What is surprising is that after at least 2 demonstarted instances where lubrication was lost on the 92 the Cat A certification wasn't pulled, because I would argue that circumstances have shown that the 'extremely remote' chance, isnt!!
anyway I am happy that POTUS will be flying on the second best platform while AW continue to delivery the best one to other heads of state...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to be fair the S92 was not certified through a specific loop hole as you imply, the rules always only required compliance with the 30 mins dry run time if you could not demonstrate that the chance of oil loss was 'extremely remote'.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things will be different this time on VXX
The Navy has never acknowledged that the "out of control requirements" that doomed the VH-71 (such as the ability to fly and communicate in a nuke environment or missile defenses), are not included in this version of VXX????
By Sen. McCain's math he used to ensure a kill on the VH-71, the S-92 VXX is already $206M per aircraft (vs $40M commercial S-92) in the contract awarded yesterday.
The Prime contractor (L/M) on VH-71 is back as the major sub, on this version of VXX
I guess the Navy is right though. Things will be different this time with VXX; like Sik. got the sole source win (along with CRH, and H-53K), and the Navy will NEVER let this program fail again, regardless of the cost.
So, Mr Mouse, how many S-92s have lost all their MGB oil since the cooler issue was fixed in 2009? Would you like a clue? Maybe now, total,loss probability could be termed "extremely remote"?
The oil leakage had nothing to do with the oil cooler. It was the filter housing assembly and its use of titanium studs. One of three studs galled causing failure in flight which released the filter bowl from the MGB casting. The original filter elements were actually a finer grade than even new-from-the-barrell oil, and therefore clogged more quickly and were replaced more often - resulting in more "duty cycles" on the housing studs and nuts.
The idea behind the "extremely remote" justification was that SAC claimed that any leak would have occured in the oil cooler loop, and therefore could be bypassed with valves to isolate the leak from the remainder of the system.
It was considered "extremely remote" that any component on the MGB side of the circuit could spring a leak...an assessment, in my opnion, that's entirely bollocks.
If anything, the issues seen in the south pacific and Newfoundland only serve to prove just how non-robust their tapered roller bearing gearbox design is.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANH
Then why won't Sik. put it on a test stand and PROVE it. Just like the Canadian Transport Board wants?
What caused the leak is irrelevant. The S-92 MGB failed due to oil starvation btwn 10-15 min in two "real world" examples.
What caused the leak is irrelevant. The S-92 MGB failed due to oil starvation btwn 10-15 min in two "real world" examples.
Last edited by Stinger10; 8th May 2014 at 14:50.
Then why won't Sik. put it on a test stand and PROVE it
Sans is right though, that the failures we saw were nothing to do with that part of the system, and were not containable.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM thanks for the clarification.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Recommendation A11-01
I like the last sentence ("At this time, the actions taken to date have not been sufficiently advanced to reduce the risks to transportation safety"), but for some reason this is now over a year old. maybe this subject is giving the respective authorities a bit of a head ache.
If anyone has any more upto date information I'd appreciate it.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Recommendation A11-01
I like the last sentence ("At this time, the actions taken to date have not been sufficiently advanced to reduce the risks to transportation safety"), but for some reason this is now over a year old. maybe this subject is giving the respective authorities a bit of a head ache.
If anyone has any more upto date information I'd appreciate it.
Maybe Sikorsky will superfinish the gears for this mod of the S-92. I hear that Boeing is having some success with that approach in Apache. (Third or fourth hand info, so maybe wrong).
Might that approach advance the capability to run dry toward a real 30 minutes, given the lower operating temps often seen with superfinished gears?
Happy to be corrected if I am misunderstanding a key point ...
Might that approach advance the capability to run dry toward a real 30 minutes, given the lower operating temps often seen with superfinished gears?
Happy to be corrected if I am misunderstanding a key point ...
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that there is sufficient funding in the new VXX, at $206M per aircraft, to redesign the transmission.
Why would they ever risk the Pres. of the US in an aircraft that doesn't provide the same capability as every new civil certified helicopter has to meet today?
Why would they ever risk the Pres. of the US in an aircraft that doesn't provide the same capability as every new civil certified helicopter has to meet today?
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that's admitting you have an issue with the MGB to all your current S-92 customers though.
Tough situation for Sik. Its hard to add 6000 lbs to the same UH-60 MGB and rotorhead and not impact its performance.
Tough situation for Sik. Its hard to add 6000 lbs to the same UH-60 MGB and rotorhead and not impact its performance.
I have been watching the VXX competition for a number of years now, and painful as it is for some to acknowledge, I do believe a couple of home truths are in order.
In January 2005, the US Navy awarded a $1.7 billion system development and demonstration contract to the LM led, Team US101, so to do much the same thing nine years’ later for half a billion Dollars less says a lot, as I suspect most of this money will be spent on risk reduction than actually building the test helicopters and simulators.
As neither the US101, nor the VH-92 met the speed and range requirements criteria at the time of the 2005 award, both required substantial engine, transmission and rotor redesigns, so clearly both platforms on offer back then had risk.
Yes the 101 has a slightly larger cabin, however Navy press releases at the time - post selection - reveal that both cabins met the Navy’s size requirements, although the 101 did not meet the Navy’s 20/20/18 crash worthiness requirements.
Also, noting the Jan 2005 award announcement date, the decision would have been made in late 2004, at which point the S-92 airframe (let alone a VH-92) was brand new with just a few thousand flight hours across the fleet, and therefore an unproven type (the first S-92 delivery to PHI was not until September 2004), so there would have been even more risk for a VH-92 win would there not?
As for the IDMGB, press reports suggest Sikorsky has been developing its next-generation MGB for some time now, so hard to imagine that this will not be a baseline fit in a 2023 delivery S-92. Though I cannot imagine a Marine One crew continuing flight for 30-minutes or so, post indications of a complete loss of main gearbox lubricant, with the President sat in the rear. More likely an immediate safe landing, and no I do not see the President being 30-minutes or more offshore in a helicopter, but not having first hand knowledge of actual Marine One rotary OPS, I stand to be corrected.
As has been so eloquently pointed out by Boudreaux Bob on another thread, there are some on PPRuNe who appear to have a gratuitous hatred of all things Sikorsky, particularly from the West Country, but these same people would do well to note that not only did both Agusta and Westland’s build some 900 Sikorsky helicopters under license (that’s a hell of a lot of tax revenue and employment for several generations), but that it was Sikorsky who Westland’s (and Agusta) turned to for financial and engineering assistance from 1986 to 1991 to sort out a whole host of technical issues plaguing the EH101 program - which will have since gone a long way to making it the helicopter it is today.
It is well documented why the VH-71 program was cancelled and with time moving on and platforms getting older, the Navy issued a new VXX competition in 2010, and in order to reduce risk and entry into service timelines, the Navy insisted on a COTS solution.
Boeing - Noting the COTS requirement, Boeing’s V-22 was not an option, as it does not comply with the tender requirements, so this left the BV234 or license built AW101. Much as I love the venerable Chinook, downwash, footprint, air transportability issues and through life costs, let alone no current production line for the 234 and latest FAR Part 29 compliance would surely have caused Boeing to back away from competing further with a civil certified commercial platform type.
As for the opportunity to build the AW101 under license in the US, with Boeing having full intellectual property and production rights for the helicopter (so not teaming with AW at all), this idea was kicked off in the press four years’ ago and by their own admission was a kneejerk reaction, but died a death in 2012 when AW teamed-up with Northrop Grumman. I can only guess that either AW and Boeing were unable to agree T&C’s, or AW did not like the numbers, what with Boeing having it all their own way.
Airbus Helicopters – I suspect AH will have considered an AH225 offering, but chose not to join in the fray at all - as I recall.
AgustaWestland – So that leaves AW with a 101 solution. Noting the ‘likely’ attention to compliance with the all the latter FAA Part 29 Amendments (not just the transmission), including a 20/20/18g high mass component crash retention certification (something the Navy likes) and cost to build and support 21 to 27 odd helicopters and 2 simulators over a twenty five year - and more - period, just how well would the AW101 score on an FAR 29 conformity and acquisition and through life costing’s tally verses its slightly smaller, 2 engined, lower maintenance requirement competitors?
Maybe not so well, which is possibly why AW decided against bidding, as I suspect just like the CRH program, it was going to be a much more expensive solution, and this for a President who would not want to be seen spending too much of US tax payers money on a replacement Marine One helicopter fleet while voters are still feeling the pinch and sequestration is hitting US defense industries hard.
Dangermouse - The 225, 92, 101 and even the CH-47/234 all have their followers, and yet as is the nature of aircraft, all have their issues – good and bad, but each can be better suited for customer requirements, locations, risks and costs than the other, but clearly some don’t agree, so cry foul with suggestions of a ‘restrictive bid process.’
The same could be said of a number of UK helicopter bids, both military and civil these past 10-years and more in which AW has been favoured at the expense of other more suitable platforms, but funny enough, I don’t see you complaining about these.
Reading the press release would suggest that this will be the 11th HoS win for the S-92, so might I inquire as to how many HoS’s fly the world’s ‘Best’ helicopter, and while you are at it, you might want to list to all us Pruners the top ten, or five, or three, or how about just the top ‘One’ Offshore and Airline operators of the world’s ‘Best’ helicopter and just why it is that the AW101 is ‘the helicopter of choice’ for demanding operations in the medium to heavy platform range for discerning Offshore, Airline and VIP commercial operators?
When certified in 2004, the S-92 was the first (and only) rotorcraft in the world certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, at the time the latest US safety regulations, as well as the equivalent European Aviation Safety Agency/Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) standards, so would you care to inform us of any other helicopters considered for the VXX competition which are either equal to, or newer in certification compliance than the S-92A?
In January 2005, the US Navy awarded a $1.7 billion system development and demonstration contract to the LM led, Team US101, so to do much the same thing nine years’ later for half a billion Dollars less says a lot, as I suspect most of this money will be spent on risk reduction than actually building the test helicopters and simulators.
As neither the US101, nor the VH-92 met the speed and range requirements criteria at the time of the 2005 award, both required substantial engine, transmission and rotor redesigns, so clearly both platforms on offer back then had risk.
Yes the 101 has a slightly larger cabin, however Navy press releases at the time - post selection - reveal that both cabins met the Navy’s size requirements, although the 101 did not meet the Navy’s 20/20/18 crash worthiness requirements.
Also, noting the Jan 2005 award announcement date, the decision would have been made in late 2004, at which point the S-92 airframe (let alone a VH-92) was brand new with just a few thousand flight hours across the fleet, and therefore an unproven type (the first S-92 delivery to PHI was not until September 2004), so there would have been even more risk for a VH-92 win would there not?
As for the IDMGB, press reports suggest Sikorsky has been developing its next-generation MGB for some time now, so hard to imagine that this will not be a baseline fit in a 2023 delivery S-92. Though I cannot imagine a Marine One crew continuing flight for 30-minutes or so, post indications of a complete loss of main gearbox lubricant, with the President sat in the rear. More likely an immediate safe landing, and no I do not see the President being 30-minutes or more offshore in a helicopter, but not having first hand knowledge of actual Marine One rotary OPS, I stand to be corrected.
As has been so eloquently pointed out by Boudreaux Bob on another thread, there are some on PPRuNe who appear to have a gratuitous hatred of all things Sikorsky, particularly from the West Country, but these same people would do well to note that not only did both Agusta and Westland’s build some 900 Sikorsky helicopters under license (that’s a hell of a lot of tax revenue and employment for several generations), but that it was Sikorsky who Westland’s (and Agusta) turned to for financial and engineering assistance from 1986 to 1991 to sort out a whole host of technical issues plaguing the EH101 program - which will have since gone a long way to making it the helicopter it is today.
It is well documented why the VH-71 program was cancelled and with time moving on and platforms getting older, the Navy issued a new VXX competition in 2010, and in order to reduce risk and entry into service timelines, the Navy insisted on a COTS solution.
Boeing - Noting the COTS requirement, Boeing’s V-22 was not an option, as it does not comply with the tender requirements, so this left the BV234 or license built AW101. Much as I love the venerable Chinook, downwash, footprint, air transportability issues and through life costs, let alone no current production line for the 234 and latest FAR Part 29 compliance would surely have caused Boeing to back away from competing further with a civil certified commercial platform type.
As for the opportunity to build the AW101 under license in the US, with Boeing having full intellectual property and production rights for the helicopter (so not teaming with AW at all), this idea was kicked off in the press four years’ ago and by their own admission was a kneejerk reaction, but died a death in 2012 when AW teamed-up with Northrop Grumman. I can only guess that either AW and Boeing were unable to agree T&C’s, or AW did not like the numbers, what with Boeing having it all their own way.
Airbus Helicopters – I suspect AH will have considered an AH225 offering, but chose not to join in the fray at all - as I recall.
AgustaWestland – So that leaves AW with a 101 solution. Noting the ‘likely’ attention to compliance with the all the latter FAA Part 29 Amendments (not just the transmission), including a 20/20/18g high mass component crash retention certification (something the Navy likes) and cost to build and support 21 to 27 odd helicopters and 2 simulators over a twenty five year - and more - period, just how well would the AW101 score on an FAR 29 conformity and acquisition and through life costing’s tally verses its slightly smaller, 2 engined, lower maintenance requirement competitors?
Maybe not so well, which is possibly why AW decided against bidding, as I suspect just like the CRH program, it was going to be a much more expensive solution, and this for a President who would not want to be seen spending too much of US tax payers money on a replacement Marine One helicopter fleet while voters are still feeling the pinch and sequestration is hitting US defense industries hard.
Dangermouse - The 225, 92, 101 and even the CH-47/234 all have their followers, and yet as is the nature of aircraft, all have their issues – good and bad, but each can be better suited for customer requirements, locations, risks and costs than the other, but clearly some don’t agree, so cry foul with suggestions of a ‘restrictive bid process.’
The same could be said of a number of UK helicopter bids, both military and civil these past 10-years and more in which AW has been favoured at the expense of other more suitable platforms, but funny enough, I don’t see you complaining about these.
Reading the press release would suggest that this will be the 11th HoS win for the S-92, so might I inquire as to how many HoS’s fly the world’s ‘Best’ helicopter, and while you are at it, you might want to list to all us Pruners the top ten, or five, or three, or how about just the top ‘One’ Offshore and Airline operators of the world’s ‘Best’ helicopter and just why it is that the AW101 is ‘the helicopter of choice’ for demanding operations in the medium to heavy platform range for discerning Offshore, Airline and VIP commercial operators?
Why would they ever risk the Pres. of the US in an aircraft that doesn't provide the same capability as every new civil certified helicopter has to meet today?